Dhanam v. The District Revenue Officer

ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Page3 of 5 the respondents no.2 and 3.

¶2The petitioners are the claimants no.5, 6, 8 and 9 in LAOP No.165 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem. Upon reference made under Section 22 (3) and 23 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the said LAOP is taken on file and it is pending disposal before the said Court. Meanwhile, the claimant No.2 Smt.Santhi W/o Vetrivel and Claimant No.3 Smt. Indrani, took out applications in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2025 to condone the delay in receiving the petitions mentioned documents. The District Revenue Officer, Salem has been arrayed as respondent in both the aforestated interim applications. In I.A.No.4 of 2025, out of nine documents, document No.5, 6 and 7 are the informations given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act) and proceedings of the revenue officials. Official communications of the Tahsildar, Salem addressed to the District Revenue Officer dated 27.06.2025 and that was issued under RTI Act and the said copy was enclosed along with I.A.No.5 of 2025. After issuance of notice to the counsel for the respondent, the Court has ordered to receive the documents subject to proof and relevancy. The documents are not marked. Receiving and marking of documents are entirely different. The documents have been received and kept in the file and no prejudice is caused to any of the parties. The other parties have got opportunity to raise their objections at the time of marking the documents. Page4 of 5

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously argue that they being claimants, they were not arrayed as respondents and without affording opportunity, the petitions are allowed. Therefore, the case is to be transferred to the District Court, Dharmapuri. As mentioned above, after hearing both sides, an order to receive the documents was passed, which cannot be fault with.

¶4This Court is of the considered view that, the petitioners have failed to make out case for transfer and consequently, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed and thereby, dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 06-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MAC To

¶1The Principal District Judge Court, Salem

¶2The District Revenue Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Salem, Salem District. TRoCMPoNo.o1391oofo2025 R.KALAIMATHI,eJ. MAC TReCMPeNo.e1391eofe2025 and CMPeNo.32525eofe2025 06-04-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and CMP No.32525 of 2025 1. Dhanam D/o Late Narayanan, No 1/968, Kaliyamman Koil Street, State Bank Colony, Meiyanoor, Salem 4. 2. N. Kumar S/o. Late Narayanan, No.130/96(4), Panangaadu, Meiyanoor, Salem - 4. 3. N. Palanisamy S/o. Late Narayanan, Hanuman Theertham, Krishnagiri District. Now residing at No.570/378C, Thirunagar, State Bank Colony, Meiyanoor, Salem - 4. 4. N. Balu S/o. Late Narayanan, No.570/378C, Thirunagar, State Bank Colony, Meiyanoor, Salem - 4. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The District Revenue Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Salem, Salem District. Page2 of 5 2. Santhi W/o. C. Vetrivel, 1/93, Thangavel Nagar, Alagapuram, Salem 636 016 3. S. Indirani W/o. R. Selvaraj, No.43, 1st East Main Road, Bakiyavalli Illam, Anna Nagar, Madurai - 20 4. Sekar S/o. Late Narayanan, No.230/96(2) Panangadu, Meiyanoor, Salem - 4 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to withdraw and transfer the case in LAOP No.165/2019 on the file of Principal District Judge Court, Salem to any other District Judge Court either Dharmapuri. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.Kalaikovan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy for R2 and R3 No appearance for R4